UK Supreme Court Distinguishes Between the Rights of Women and Trans Women

The United Kingdom's Supreme Court has ruled that not all women's rights can be granted unless one is biologically female. Such a right includes, for example, the use of women's restrooms, which are no longer accessible in the island nation to men with a feminine gender identity.

The court’s decision is, of course, appropriate and reasonable, and I have no objection to it whatsoever. What I do find strange, however, is that such self-evident matters need to be clarified in court. 

Then again, we all remember last year’s Olympics, where a person — at least partially biologically male — won in two women’s boxing divisions. Would it be wrong if the right of these winners to compete in the women's division were challenged in court, even retrospectively?

Time will tell how the UK’s decision will affect women’s rights in other countries. Will they also follow clear common sense, or is there still some corner of the world where women’s status is willingly undermined to appease the demands of people with differing sexual identities?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Javier Milei and the Great Western Opportunity
A Fair Game or Unfair Judgment?
Everyone has the right

EU Decision-Makers Did the Bear a Disservice

In Finland, there are four so-called large carnivores. They are the bear, wolf, lynx, and wolverine.

Of these, only the bear and wolf can pose a danger to humans. Or more precisely, only the bear, since the last time a Finnish wolf killed a human was in 1882.

Bears, on the other hand, occasionally attack people. A particularly dangerous time is spring, when these rulers of the forest have cubs. Mother bears will attack, especially if, for some reason—such as during a jog—a person happens to come between them.

The risk exists in remote forest areas, of course, but a bear attack is especially likely when the predator roams densely populated areas, such as towns and cities.

That’s why it’s concerning that recently, bears have been wandering into cities more frequently. According to Finnish large carnivore researcher Ilpo Kojola, this is because bear hunting has practically come to a complete halt in recent years.

This has happened because Finland’s Supreme Court ruled that population control hunting is illegal in Finland. This, in turn, stems from the European Union's Habitats Directive, which requires member states to prohibit the deliberate capture or killing of individuals from certain species in the wild.

Because of this, Finns can currently do nothing but admire urban bears and, at the same time, fear the moment when a bear finally kills—whether to defend its cubs or for some other reason—a human, or perhaps more. And after that, wait anxiously to see what kind of hatred toward predators will take hold among Finns.

If and when that happens, the only certainty is that many bears will be poached. And that likely serves neither the interests of the EU's directive makers nor the bears themselves.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
During the Eurovision song spectacle, the incompetence of EU officials was revealed
Wolfs affect nature conservation
A popular hobby risks ecological balance, private property and human health in Finland

Facts, US Supreme Court and the case of Roe v. Wade

US Supreme Court has prepared overturning Roe v. Wade to give up federally accepted right for an abortion. This was commented by professor Diana Greene Foster in Science magazine. She pointed out - based on her own research - that the aim of the Supreme Court is against scientific evidence. 

Her results have shown that patients who received an abortion were more than six times more likely to report aspirational 1-year plans than those who were denied one. They were also more likely to have a wanted child later and could better take care of the children they already had. 

It is also worth noting that most of abortion patients are already parents. Therefore she considers it clear that a legal abortion has powerful and positive multigenerational impacts. 

She also pointed out that if people are forced to carry a pregnancy to term, they have a higher risk to experience lasting financial hardships, and women from whom abortion has been denied had three times greater odds of being unemployed than those who obtained abortions. They also were four times more likely of being below the federal poverty level.

I am writing from Finland, and this issue does not directly concern me. However, I want to point out that here a new abortion law came into force in 1970. It allowed abortion on social grounds to women under 17 or over 40 years of age, or when a mother had already given birth to four children. And according to instructions from the Medical Board, abortion has been freely available to unmarried, widowed and divorced people. 

Year 1973 was the peak year for legal abortions in Finland, with more than 23 000 abortions recorded. That was equal to the number of illegal abortions before the law change - but removed serious health problems associated with operations performed by quacks. Thereafter the number of abortions has steadily declined and during the recent years the number of abortions per year has been about 10 000. Thus, the liberal attitude towards abortions in our country has in fact reduced the number of abortions. 

Taken together, I hope these facts affect decision makers in all states of the USA if the federal law will be turned down by the Supreme Court. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Sexual harassment and bullying in working life
Obligatory military service gains support